https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964072
Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |ON_DEV
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/ghc-text-0.11.3.1
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-text-
devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mbuf/964072-ghc-text/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-text-0.11.3.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-text-devel-0.11.3.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-text.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, recordings
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-text ghc-text-devel
ghc-text.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, recordings
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-text (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(array-0.3.0.2)
ghc(base-4.3.1.0)
ghc(bytestring-0.9.1.10)
ghc(deepseq-1.1.0.2)
ghc(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0)
ghc(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3)
libHSarray-0.3.0.2-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.3.1.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHSbytestring-0.9.1.10-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHScontainers-0.4.0.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-1.1.0.2-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.2.0.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-0.2.0.3-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-text-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(text-0.11.3.1)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(array-0.3.0.2)
ghc-devel(base-4.3.1.0)
ghc-devel(bytestring-0.9.1.10)
ghc-devel(deepseq-1.1.0.2)
ghc-devel(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0)
ghc-devel(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3)
ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1)
ghc-prof(array-0.3.0.2)
ghc-prof(base-4.3.1.0)
ghc-prof(bytestring-0.9.1.10)
ghc-prof(deepseq-1.1.0.2)
ghc-prof(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0)
ghc-prof(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3)
ghc-text
Provides
--------
ghc-text:
ghc(text-0.11.3.1)
ghc-text
ghc-text(x86-64)
libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit)
ghc-text-devel:
ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1)
ghc-prof(text-0.11.3.1)
ghc-text-devel
ghc-text-devel(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/text/0.11.3.1/text-0.11.3.1.tar…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
76aad4a647cad7099b5a693eb9a4bc5263f7751392d8d1f87b14c78e2069559f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
76aad4a647cad7099b5a693eb9a4bc5263f7751392d8d1f87b14c78e2069559f
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 964072
Successful Koji builds for F17, F18, F19, and F20:
Koji f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458254
Koji f19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458256
Koji f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458257
Koji f20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458255
Can you please check the one issue where /usr/share/doc/ghc-text-0.11.3.1 is
owned by both ghc-text and ghc-text-devel RPMs?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O5XcMX6tGH&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872590
Bug ID: 872590
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: low
Version: 18
Priority: low
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Summary: RFE: use bluetile with MATE instead of Gnome Shell
Fallback
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: jbastian(a)redhat.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: bluetile
Product: Fedora
Description of problem:
The MATE desktop will be in Fedora 18 [1], and since bluetile was designed to
work with Gnome 2.x (which MATE is a fork of), the bluetile package should
probably switch to using MATE instead of Gnome Shell in fallback mode.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
bluetile-0.6-9.fc18.x86_64
mate-desktop-1.4.1-11.fc18.x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.